Oil politics and Saudi Arabia's history with Islamic terrorism aside, if you read the actual executive order, then, it does lay out the primary reasoning for why the now-six countries (Iraq has apparently been removed in the revised executive order) have been placed on the ban list.

Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Entry into the United States wrote:Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

According to the executive order, the selected countries were chosen because of the lack of political stability, which creates a vacuum for terrorists in ISIS and other terrorist organizations to gain a foothold in. They were not chosen because of their Muslim population. If that is the case, Saudi Arabia has a stable political environment than what most people would think.

Per the Fragile States Index rating, the travel ban countries (excluding Iraq, as you pointed out) rank as follows:

Somalia: #1Sudan: #4Syria: #5Yemen: #6Libya: #25Iran: #47

So, I do see some correlation there. However, the two outliers are quite significant. Libya is considered only marginally unstable. Iran, while certainly not very popular with the US, is not particularly politically unstable at this time. There are many, many countries significantly more "unstable" than these two, so their presence begs the question 'why these countries?', which I turf back to you with the provocative observation that they are majority Muslim and highly visible in the public eye.

Regardless, my other points stand, and I believe they may be more important. Firstly, that experts do not generally regard nationality as a reliable predictor of terrorist activity, as US born citizens represent the majority of domestic terrorism since 9/11, so regardless of justification, policy experts simply think this is bad strategy. Secondly, that terrorism represents a minuscule amount of US mortality. Any death caused by terrorism is too many, but as a healthcare researcher, the amount of terrorism deaths in the US per year are a rounding error: 200,000 people die preventable deaths of CV and stroke alone, while roughly 6 die of terrorism. Ergo, I think that allowing terrorism to dominate both public discourse and policy agenda the way it does is a result of fear mongering on the part of the media and non-objective policymaking on the part of the white house and congress, which is to me, a cardinal sin (albeit a depressingly common one).

Azdgari wrote:Per the Fragile States Index rating, the travel ban countries (excluding Iraq, as you pointed out) rank as follows:

Somalia: #1Sudan: #4Syria: #5Yemen: #6Libya: #25Iran: #47

So, I do see some correlation there. However, the two outliers are quite significant. Libya is considered only marginally unstable. Iran, while certainly not very popular with the US, is not particularly politically unstable at this time. There are many, many countries significantly more "unstable" than these two, so their presence begs the question 'why these countries?', which I turf back to you with the provocative observation that they are majority Muslim and highly visible in the public eye.

The countries listed on the travel ban in President Trump's travel restriction executive order appeared to have been drawn from the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 signed by President Obama. Libya, Somalia, and Yemen were the first three countries, and the Department of Homeland Security included Iran, Iraq, Sudan, and Syria in a release issued on February 18, 2016. However, the Visa Waiver program had a different aim in mind, and it existed to terminate visa waivers for dual citizens who had visited those seven countries. Trump's executive order is issued to block travel and immigration of citizens and residents of those blocked countries. It's mostly determined by the Department of Homeland Security and which countries they deem to be state sponsors of terrorism and regions of political instability for which ISIS can grow influence in it.

Azdgari wrote:Regardless, my other points stand, and I believe they may be more important. Firstly, that experts do not generally regard nationality as a reliable predictor of terrorist activity, as US born citizens represent the majority of domestic terrorism since 9/11, so regardless of justification, policy experts simply think this is bad strategy. Secondly, that terrorism represents a minuscule amount of US mortality. Any death caused by terrorism is too many, but as a healthcare researcher, the amount of terrorism deaths in the US per year are a rounding error: 200,000 people die preventable deaths of CV and stroke alone, while roughly 6 die of terrorism. Ergo, I think that allowing terrorism to dominate both public discourse and policy agenda the way it does is a result of fear mongering on the part of the media and non-objective policymaking on the part of the white house and congress, which is to me, a cardinal sin (albeit a depressingly common one).

Great post! I was totally unfamiliar with that aspect of the bill's heritage, so I really appreciate you pointing that out. I acknowledge allowing refugees to enter, from anywhere and especially near ISIS territory, has risk. I think that Johnson would have been disingenuous had he insinuated that any amount of vetting makes accepting refugees a risk-free prospect.

That being said, for me the moral imperatives probably outweigh the risks. I will do some more thinking on the subject and edit/post again. Allowing children and families trapped in war zones to find a pathway to safety and opportunity is, to me... I don't have time to phrase this eloquently at the moment, but if we as a country can't contribute to efforts other countries (even our neighbors) are making in that arena, then I don't think we're living up to our self-conception of being world leader. You are, though, concerned with the risks to our own populace, and that's really important too. I definitely acknowledge the merit and weight behind that thinking.

On the subject of leadership, actually, I suppose with recent developments like abandoning the Paris agreements, abandoning the TPP (not that I necessarily disagree with that) trying to move away from NATO at least rhetorically, 'America First' etc. that being a world leader is actually not high on the US priority list, despite seeking another considerable military budget increase to maintain our (in my opinion) increasingly unsustainable global military hegemony.

Personally, I'm a bit torn on this situation. I think it's clear from what's happening to European countries that letting in refugees by the thousands isn't a good idea. Just look at the skyrocketing crime rate of countries like Germany and France--what's happening over there isn't good.

That said, it's clearly morally wrong not to do something about this. To me, it just seems like one of those "damned if you, damned if you don't" types of situations.

I mean where are the syrian refugees supposed to go? They can't go back to Syria. Saying it's a warzone is quite the understatement. We can't let them die out in the middle of the ocean, that would be a huge human rights violation.

We take them in. Yes, crime rates will spike. Not all of them will be saints. But it would be a far bigger crime to let them die in the middle of nowhere.

Then you ask me, would I be willing to let a few of them live with me? Yes, I would. Unfortunately it is not my decision given my living circumstances. If it were my decision I would.

Regulus wrote:Personally, I'm a bit torn on this situation. I think it's clear from what's happening to European countries that letting in refugees by the thousands isn't a good idea. Just look at the skyrocketing crime rate of countries like Germany and France--what's happening over there isn't good.

That said, it's clearly morally wrong not to do something about this. To me, it just seems like one of those "damned if you, damned if you don't" types of situations.

But we shouldn't be dictating our country purely off of moral concern. Especially when it's a possible national security issue. It's a little more than a bit of a crime rate increase, what's happening in France and Germany is only getting worse by the week. You know the old phrase "One bad apple spoils the whole bunch." Same thing applies here, we're talking about bringing in uncivilized people into a western society. It doesn't work. We'd be taking far too big of a risk taking them in, considering they're even using women and children to commit acts of violence (primarily suicide bombing). We just simply can't be the moral high ground for every country like we've tried so hard to be in the past.

The best thing we could do right now is pull out our relations with Saudi Arabia, and stop the funding to these terrorist groups at the source. Then let it die out on its own. Trying to take in refugees at this point into the US would be nothing more than adding a band-aid to an open wound at this point. We've learned of this quickly from France. Although, I do agree with you Az, some of the countries on that list of barred countries is a little weird, and yes it's pretty much certainly from public viewpoint. What trump is doing is certainly not perfect, but it's a bold step in the right direction, that I personally feel needed to be taken.

"There are you, you drive like a demon from station to station," - David Bowie

Regulus wrote:Personally, I'm a bit torn on this situation. I think it's clear from what's happening to European countries that letting in refugees by the thousands isn't a good idea. Just look at the skyrocketing crime rate of countries like Germany and France--what's happening over there isn't good.

That said, it's clearly morally wrong not to do something about this. To me, it just seems like one of those "damned if you, damned if you don't" types of situations.

But we shouldn't be dictating our country purely off of moral concern. Especially when it's a possible national security issue. It's a little more than a bit of a crime rate increase, what's happening in France and Germany is only getting worse by the week. You know the old phrase "One bad apple spoils the whole bunch." Same thing applies here, we're talking about bringing in uncivilized people into a western society. It doesn't work. We'd be taking far too big of a risk taking them in, considering they're even using women and children to commit acts of violence (primarily suicide bombing). We just simply can't be the moral high ground for every country like we've tried so hard to be in the past.

The best thing we could do right now is pull out our relations with Saudi Arabia, and stop the funding to these terrorist groups at the source. Then let it die out on its own. Trying to take in refugees at this point into the US would be nothing more than adding a band-aid to an open wound at this point. We've learned of this quickly from France. Although, I do agree with you Az, some of the countries on that list of barred countries is a little weird, and yes it's pretty much certainly from public viewpoint. What trump is doing is certainly not perfect, but it's a bold step in the right direction, that I personally feel needed to be taken.

Can you help me understand the crime waves Germany and France are experiencing? Most of my brief research suggests that immigrants do notcommit more crimethan natives. I've seen lots of anecdotal or incomplete evidence against immigrants in newspaper articles as well as a few other sources, but they tend to take numbers out of context (e.g. immigrant crime rose by 79%, but the number of immigrants increased by 440%) or other such flaws. That being said, there's definitely enough there to make me a little bit wary, and if you can show me some good data, I'd be glad to see it.

Secondly, I think you're unfairly painting the whole refugee population with the ISIS brush. When you say they're "uncivilized" and using women and children as weapons, you're talking about extremists, not the average refugee who just wants his daughter to be able to pursue some semblance of a real life. Yes, there are cultural adjustments, and the views of many Muslims on women are incompatible with our own. But you can't judge a refugee population based on the actions of the group whose violence is causing them to be refugees.

Side note: I'm not sure that the US has much of a history of taking the moral high ground.

Regulus wrote:Personally, I'm a bit torn on this situation. I think it's clear from what's happening to European countries that letting in refugees by the thousands isn't a good idea. Just look at the skyrocketing crime rate of countries like Germany and France--what's happening over there isn't good.

That said, it's clearly morally wrong not to do something about this. To me, it just seems like one of those "damned if you, damned if you don't" types of situations.

But we shouldn't be dictating our country purely off of moral concern. Especially when it's a possible national security issue. It's a little more than a bit of a crime rate increase, what's happening in France and Germany is only getting worse by the week. You know the old phrase "One bad apple spoils the whole bunch." Same thing applies here, we're talking about bringing in uncivilized people into a western society. It doesn't work. We'd be taking far too big of a risk taking them in, considering they're even using women and children to commit acts of violence (primarily suicide bombing). We just simply can't be the moral high ground for every country like we've tried so hard to be in the past.

The best thing we could do right now is pull out our relations with Saudi Arabia, and stop the funding to these terrorist groups at the source. Then let it die out on its own. Trying to take in refugees at this point into the US would be nothing more than adding a band-aid to an open wound at this point. We've learned of this quickly from France. Although, I do agree with you Az, some of the countries on that list of barred countries is a little weird, and yes it's pretty much certainly from public viewpoint. What trump is doing is certainly not perfect, but it's a bold step in the right direction, that I personally feel needed to be taken.

Can you help me understand the crime waves Germany and France are experiencing? Most of my brief research suggests that immigrants do notcommit more crimethan natives. I've seen lots of anecdotal or incomplete evidence against immigrants in newspaper articles as well as a few other sources, but they tend to take numbers out of context (e.g. immigrant crime rose by 79%, but the number of immigrants increased by 440%) or other such flaws. That being said, there's definitely enough there to make me a little bit wary, and if you can show me some good data, I'd be glad to see it.

Secondly, I think you're unfairly painting the whole refugee population with the ISIS brush. When you say they're "uncivilized" and using women and children as weapons, you're talking about extremists, not the average refugee who just wants his daughter to be able to pursue some semblance of a real life. Yes, there are cultural adjustments, and the views of many Muslims on women are incompatible with our own. But you can't judge a refugee population based on the actions of the group whose violence is causing them to be refugees.

Side note: I'm not sure that the US has much of a history of taking the moral high ground.

I've tried to find actual unbiased statistics on this, but I haven't been able to do so. It's all so polarizing, and to make matters worse, this kind of situation isn't one that's easy to examine analytically. There are so many variables, drawing certain conclusions is almost impossible.

I think letting in many refugees is indeed a problem and has negative impacts on a society, but I'll admit that I'm totally unsure of exactly how bad the effects are and the intricacies therein.

Regulus wrote:Personally, I'm a bit torn on this situation. I think it's clear from what's happening to European countries that letting in refugees by the thousands isn't a good idea. Just look at the skyrocketing crime rate of countries like Germany and France--what's happening over there isn't good.

That said, it's clearly morally wrong not to do something about this. To me, it just seems like one of those "damned if you, damned if you don't" types of situations.

But we shouldn't be dictating our country purely off of moral concern. Especially when it's a possible national security issue. It's a little more than a bit of a crime rate increase, what's happening in France and Germany is only getting worse by the week. You know the old phrase "One bad apple spoils the whole bunch." Same thing applies here, we're talking about bringing in uncivilized people into a western society. It doesn't work. We'd be taking far too big of a risk taking them in, considering they're even using women and children to commit acts of violence (primarily suicide bombing). We just simply can't be the moral high ground for every country like we've tried so hard to be in the past.

The best thing we could do right now is pull out our relations with Saudi Arabia, and stop the funding to these terrorist groups at the source. Then let it die out on its own. Trying to take in refugees at this point into the US would be nothing more than adding a band-aid to an open wound at this point. We've learned of this quickly from France. Although, I do agree with you Az, some of the countries on that list of barred countries is a little weird, and yes it's pretty much certainly from public viewpoint. What trump is doing is certainly not perfect, but it's a bold step in the right direction, that I personally feel needed to be taken.

Can you help me understand the crime waves Germany and France are experiencing? Most of my brief research suggests that immigrants do notcommit more crimethan natives. I've seen lots of anecdotal or incomplete evidence against immigrants in newspaper articles as well as a few other sources, but they tend to take numbers out of context (e.g. immigrant crime rose by 79%, but the number of immigrants increased by 440%) or other such flaws. That being said, there's definitely enough there to make me a little bit wary, and if you can show me some good data, I'd be glad to see it.

Secondly, I think you're unfairly painting the whole refugee population with the ISIS brush. When you say they're "uncivilized" and using women and children as weapons, you're talking about extremists, not the average refugee who just wants his daughter to be able to pursue some semblance of a real life. Yes, there are cultural adjustments, and the views of many Muslims on women are incompatible with our own. But you can't judge a refugee population based on the actions of the group whose violence is causing them to be refugees.

Side note: I'm not sure that the US has much of a history of taking the moral high ground.

I mean, I can't really find any number statistics (as terror attacks are hard to map out statistically, and I'm not going to act like I know 100% that I know exact numbers of anything), but the reason I think there's cause of concern is this:

ISIS is willingly infecting groups of refugees with their own terrorists. Clearly, too, they've found there's ways to fit in with the normal refugees. It's sad that normal refugees would have to get thrown under the bus because of them, but that's exactly what ISIS doesn't want us to do. They want us to bring them in so they can attack. It's far too hotkey of an issue to just let them in blindly. If we can somehow find a way to seperate the terrorists from the Refugees (which in that case, would be hard because once again, ISIS is managing to FIT IN with the crowds), then I'd agree with you. But until then, we shouldn't be taking the risk, because 1 apple can spoil the bunch.

Also, let us not forget Islam as a whole is NOT a religion of peace. There's just things that are believed in their religion and culture that wouldn't adjust to american society if they were to be imported here. I'm sorry but as a gay man myself, I really don't want cultures of people here who think it's the honorable thing to do within their religion to throw gay men off of roofs, and stone them to death, and honor kill women for not abiding by their law (which by the way has happened even in America, just to a much lesser degree).

The simple question is, why take the chance when there's a majority in their country that ARE savages and want to inflict us nothing but harm?

Are you talking just women and children? I guess that would make more sense, but are you really willing to scrape-goat all of the men too, to allow for just the women and children?

"There are you, you drive like a demon from station to station," - David Bowie